Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, by imprisonment for a year and by imprisonment for a year, and by imprisonment for a year for a defendant 2 (Defendant 1) and by imprisonment for a period of six months, respectively.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant 2 (Defendant 1), and for Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) for one year for each of the above punishment.

To order Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) to provide community service for 80 hours.

The charge that Defendant 3 (FEM: Defendant 2) is not guilty of violating the Automobile Management Act.

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 1’s reliance on Defendant 2’s horse, purchased and rented the instant vehicle in the name of the victims to use the said money as the funds for acquiring rents, and did not intend to obtain a loan as security for the vehicle, and explained the purport thereof to the victims and made the victims purchase the instant vehicle in their names. In addition, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have taken over the instant vehicle by deceiving the victims on the ground that he did not deceiving the victims, and he had the intent to take over the automobile sales company due to the rent for the said lease and had the ability to take over the automobile sales company. Despite this, the lower court recognized that Defendant 1 received the instant vehicle by deceiving the victims in collusion with Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) and by deceiving the victims, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant 1 (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) concluded a sales contract for the instant vehicle under his name on the grounds that Defendant 1 would purchase a heavy vehicle in his own name, and simultaneously arranged for an installment financing contract with the capital company. Defendant 1 asked Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) who is the borrower company to obtain a loan from the said purchased vehicle as collateral and received a loan from the vehicle as collateral and delivered it to Defendant 1. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) conspired with Defendant 1 and did not deceiving the victims, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below to the defendant 2 (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c) Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 3 (U.S.: Defendant 2) lent the instant vehicle to a third party to lend money during the period of keeping the instant vehicle as collateral. Defendant 3 (U.S.: Defendant 2) did not acquire the ownership of the instant vehicle and transfer it again to a third party. A part of the persons who leased and used the instant vehicle or those who arranged for lease, etc. in the middle, forged the document, and the ownership of the instant vehicle was transferred to the wind, but the lower court found Defendant 3 (U.S. 2) guilty of the violation of the Automobile Management Act among the facts charged against Defendant 3 (U.S. 2), thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 200 hours of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below to Defendant 3 (largeboard: Defendant 2) is too unreasonable.

D. As to the judgment of innocence against Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) stated that the court below did not register a credit business in the court below's trial that the instant vehicle was offered as security, and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) also stated that the instant vehicle was offered as security by Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) upon Defendant 1's request. In full view of these circumstances, although Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) was sufficiently recognized that the instant vehicle was offered as security, the court below acquitted Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) on this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 1

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that the victims of the instant vehicle had an intention to take over the instant vehicle as collateral and that it was difficult for the victims to have been aware of the market price or rent of the vehicle, etc., and that Defendant 1 was transferred from Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) to Defendant 3-4% of the sales price of each of the instant vehicles, and that it was difficult for Defendant 1 to believe that it was difficult for the victims to take over the instant vehicle as collateral. However, even if Defendant 1’s statement was made, it is reasonable to consider that Defendant 1 had an intention to take over the instant vehicle as collateral and ability to take over the instant vehicle, and that Defendant 1 was not aware of the amount of money paid to the victims of the instant vehicle, and that Defendant 1 was not aware of the amount of money paid to Defendant 1, as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that Defendant 1 was not aware of the amount of money paid to Defendant 1’s commercial vehicle as well as the amount of money paid to Defendant 10 million won.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In light of the following facts: (a) the crime of this case was committed by Defendant 1 by deceiving the victims who are not the victims; (b) the victims purchase each vehicle of this case by providing them at will; and (c) Defendant 1 acquired money by borrowing them as collateral; (c) Defendant 1 appears to have committed the principal act of the crime of this case; (d) the target was Defendant 1’s own seal; and (e) the amount acquired by deception was a large amount of KRW 300 million or more; and (e) Defendant 1 acquired most of the loans, the crime was very heavy and defective; (e) Defendant 1 did not agree with some victims until the trial; (c) Defendant 1 did not pay the agreed amount; and (d) some of the victims did not pay the agreed amount; and (e) Defendant 1 reversed the intent of the agreement; and (e) most of the vehicles of this case appears to have been occupied by a third party; and (e) it appears that it is difficult to recover damage by transferring ownership to a third party.

However, Defendant 1 also paid part of the installment of each of the instant vehicles. Some of the victims agreed at the lower court. The issue of payment of the vehicle price was resolved by public sale in the capital company. Co-Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) also agreed with the victim Non-indicted 6, Defendant 1 did not have any record of punishment for the same criminal offense except for the punishment of fraud in 1994. Defendant 1's each of the instant crimes is in a concurrent relationship with the crime of serious injury for which the judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and other various circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case including the motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the instant crime, degree of damage, relationship with victims, circumstances after the crime, family relationship, etc., the lower court's punishment imposed on Defendant 1 is somewhat inappropriate. Thus, Defendant 1's assertion is justified.

(b) Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) asserts that Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 1 and there is insufficient motive for deceiving victims, and all the victims of this case are the figures of Defendant 1, since they did not have any direct relation with themselves, they did not deceiving victims, and they merely conspired with Defendant 1, and that they conspired with Defendant 1 for the reason that they concluded a sales contract with the victims.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) asserted that there was only some fees to be earned by the victims from the crime of this case, but Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) took part in the crime of this case and did not appear to have been clearly expressed that there was an opportunity to sell a vehicle in his company and the benefit therefrom, but there was no reason to believe that Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2) took part in the crime of this case’s act of purchasing the vehicle under the name of the victims: Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2) was not aware that there was no reason to take part in the crime of this case’s act of purchasing the vehicle under the name of the victims: Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2) was delivered a statement to the victims of this case, and Defendant 1 was also aware that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that the vehicle was transferred to Defendant 1’s company.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

In light of the following facts, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) conspired with Defendant 1 and deceiving the victims of the instant vehicle, and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) is not guilty in that it deceivings the victims by taking advantage of his status as a representative of the automobile sales company; Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) did not reach an agreement with some victims up to the trial; most of the instant vehicles are still in possession of a third party; some of them are deemed difficult to recover from damage due to the transfer of ownership to a third party. Thus, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) should be punished strictly.

However, in the crime of this case, Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) appears to have engaged in a passive act to the extent that it facilitates Defendant 1's criminal act, rather than taking active deception against the victims. Most of the funds borrowed as security of each of the vehicles of this case were paid to Defendant 1. The profits gained by Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) are not relatively high due to the crime of this case, and Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) appears to have made efforts to recover victims' damage, such as four persons from the victims of this case and their agreement, etc., and there was no record of punishment for the same crime. In addition, Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) did not have the records of criminal punishment for the same crime, and the motive, circumstance and consequence of the crime of this case, degree of damage, the victim's relationship with the victims, family relation after the crime of this case, etc., the court below's assertion that Defendant 2 was unfair (Defendant 1).

(c) Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts

A) Summary of the facts charged in this case

Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) did not register a credit business with the competent authority, and on June 1, 2010, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) provided (vehicle No. 1 omitted) passenger cars in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 at ○○○ Agricultural Cooperative located in Daejeon Sung-gu, Daejeon, and lent KRW 20 million to Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 1) by the same method until July 15, 2010 and lent KRW 788 million in total on four occasions, as shown in attached Table 3, to the same method as indicated in attached Table 3.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that: (a) Defendant 3 (U.S. 2) paid the money to Defendant 2 (U. 2: Defendant 1) without any loan certificate; (b) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (U.S. 2: Defendant 2) paid the money to Defendant 3 (U.S. 2: Defendant 3) on or around June 1, 2010, according to the investigation agency of Defendant 3 (U.S. 2) and the statements in this court; (c) Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 (U.S. 1) paid the money for the first time, and the interest was paid for three to four months; (d) the agreement on the above interest and the due date was not specific; (e) whether there was a relation between the Defendants with ordinary money lending and the establishment of security; and (e) the act of Defendant 2 (U.S. 3:U. 2) transferred the vehicle to Defendant 3 (U.S. 3:U. 2) without any benefit from the transfer of the vehicle.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below, i.e.,: ① Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) recognized all the charges of this part of the charges that allowed the instant vehicle to be used as collateral with registration from the investigative agency to the court of the trial; ② Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) also stated that the instant vehicle was loaned as collateral by Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) at the request of Defendant 1 and delivered it to Defendant 1; ③ Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) stated that the instant vehicle was loaned as collateral and the agreement or interest agreement was 3% per month; ④ Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) obtained the instant vehicle as collateral and gave the loan to a third party, and subsequently transferred the vehicle possession of the instant vehicle to Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 3: Defendant 2) did not err in the misapprehension of the Automobile Management Act as well as in the judgment below that found Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) not guilty.

2) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant 3 (Alternatives: Defendant 2)

Although the Automobile Management Act stipulates the obligation to apply for the registration of the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, in light of the fact that the Automobile Management Act and the Enforcement Decree provide for the registration of the mortgage, it is reasonable to deem that the above registration of the transfer does not stipulate the obligation of the person who acquired the right to the motor vehicle with the intent to acquire the ownership, nor does it stipulate the obligation of the person who acquired the right to the motor vehicle for the bond security. In order to establish the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act against Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2), Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) should be recognized.

Defendant 3 (U.S.: Defendant 2) did not have an intention to acquire ownership of the instant vehicle consistently from an investigative agency to the trial of the party, and only lent the instant vehicle as collateral, used the instant vehicle for the purpose of distributing funds by means of leasing the instant vehicle or taking the money as collateral even after the fact that there was no intention to transfer the ownership of the instant vehicle. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the original court and the trial, namely, ① the victims, the nominal owner of the instant vehicle, who were not the Defendant 3 (U.S. 2), filed a complaint for the transfer of ownership of some of the instant vehicles, but all of the instant vehicles were not suspected of having no intention to acquire ownership of the instant vehicle (U.S. 2): Defendant 3 (U.S. 2) and Defendant 3 (U.S. 2) did not have any intention to acquire ownership of the instant vehicle from the instant investigative agency to the point of view that there was no other evidence to acknowledge ownership of the instant vehicle in the name of the victims and the victims of the instant vehicle.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since both the defendants and the prosecutor's appeal against the judgment of the court below are well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is again judged as follows, without examining the grounds for unfair sentencing on the defendant 3 (Defendant 2).

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 347(1) and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act;

(b) Defendant 2 (Appointment of Defendant 1): Articles 347(1) and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act;

(c) Defendant 3 (Appointment of Defendant 2): Articles 19 (1) 1 and 3 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (Defendant 1): The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against victim non-indicted 6, who has a heavier degree of offense)

(b) Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2): the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against punishment stipulated in the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users on June 4, 2010 with heavy criminality)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2): Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (with respect to Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1), among the judgments on the grounds for appeal as to the above grounds for appeal, consideration of each of the following favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing as to Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2)

1. Social service order;

Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2): Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

As seen in the determination on the grounds of appeal above, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the above sentencing conditions as well as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the above Defendants, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, degree of damage, criminal records, circumstances after the crime was committed, health conditions, and family relation, the punishment shall be determined as ordered, and the execution of the punishment shall be suspended only once against Defendant 2 (Defendant 1).

2. Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by Defendant 3 (PP: Defendant 2) without being registered and extended credit business by making the instant vehicle available as a security. The amount of the loan is not less than KRW 80,000,000, and the quality of the crime is poor. Defendant 3 (PP: Defendant 2) after acquiring the instant vehicle as security, has been managed by means of leasing or distributing the said vehicle to another party after acquiring the instant vehicle, etc., and the vehicle in this case is now running across a large lane, etc., and the circumstances after the crime of this case are poor, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant 3 (PP: Defendant 2). However, considering the frequency of the crime of this case or the frequency thereof, the actual acquisition of the instant vehicle by Defendant 3 (PP: Defendant 2) is relatively relatively much more likely, and there is no record of punishment as a crime of the same kind, and other circumstances that led to the occurrence of the crime of this case, including the circumstances and motive of each of the above crimes, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s occupation and character and behavior (3).

If a person who has acquired a registered motor vehicle intends to transfer it to a third party, he/she shall transfer the ownership of the motor vehicle under his/her name to the Mayor/Do Governor before the transfer

A. On May 28, 2010, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2): (a) transferred the four vehicles, such as the vehicle number No. 3 in the annexed Form No. 2 (number 2 omitted) from around that time to July 15, 2010, to a third party without registering the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) without registering the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 3 (vehicle No. 3: Defendant 2).

B. Around August 18, 2010, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) transferred (vehicle number 3 omitted) passenger cars to Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 3: Defendant 2) without registering transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2). Around November 5, 2010, Defendant 3 (vehicle number 4 omitted) was transferred from Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 2) without registering transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) and thereafter transferred the (vehicle number 4 omitted) car to Defendant 3 (Defendant 2).

2. Determination

As seen in the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts in the above grounds for appeal, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) acquired the vehicle of this case with the intention to acquire ownership. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)